How Many Blacks Are “Ghetto Blacks”?

Frank Smith asks:

Robert, in your opinion, what percentage of blacks are ghetto blacks?

That question is almost impossible to answer because it is so hard to define. I have had Blacks tell me that it is only 20% of Blacks who are ghetto, but it could well be more than that because so many Blacks are so maddeningly hard to define. The truth is that many Blacks have both Civilized* and Ghetto* components to them. At times they are what I would call Civilized and at other times they are Ghetto. Others drift in and out of Civilized and Ghetto modes. A lot of the Blacks around here are like that.

And there is the definition of what is Ghetto. Ghetto is really nothing more than Street Black Culture. Where I live, a very large % of Blacks are involved in Street Black Culture, especially the younger ones.

What is the dope smoking, heavy drinking retired Black schoolteacher neighbor of mine? She acts pretty ghetto, but she was a schoolteacher for many years. One daughter just graduated from college and another is now away at college on a scholarship. Another one has pimps and thugs for boyfriends, gets beaten by her lovers, has worked as a prostitute, and can speak Ebonics for an hour without my understanding a single word. She can also behave in a civilized fashion if she wants to and was recently enrolled in a surgical assistant program.

The Black girl next door is a Jehovah’s Witness, but she knows how to speak jive. Her best friend was an Hispanic gangbanger. Her boyfriend now is a good-looking young Black man who looks like a typical hood but is said to be a decent guy.

The Black handyman is a great guy, a good hard worker, but he is a real Black with a very thick accent. At times he can speak top notch jive and Ebonics.

Truth is around here, most of the Blacks act ghetto to one degree or another.

“Ghetto” and “Civilized” are best seen as “modes” that many US Blacks negotiate back and forth between, sometimes during discreet periods and at other times in the course of an hour or a day. Others mix both Civilized and Ghetto modes together at the same time in a mosaic. Some ascend to Civilized, while others descent to Ghetto. The same person may make this journey many times.

When Blacks are a minority as they are in my town (4%), heavily ghettoized Blacks have their ghetto behaviors substantially modulated by the presence of large Hispanic or White majorities, who encourage them to aspire to more Civilized behaviors while encouraging them to tone down the more ghetto behaviors. If the Black % in this town went up by a significant number, many of these local Blacks would probably act less Civilized and more ghetto, since ghetto behaviors seem to increase with the % percentage of Blacks in a community as the lowest common denominator rules and Blacks egg each other in a race to race to the bottom and there are few positive role models to aspire to or to police bad behaviors.

*In this essay, I use Civilized to mean the opposite of Ghetto behaviors. A Black person acting Civilized would display minimal ghetto behaviors and would be describe by Whites as behaving well within the context of what we think is decent behavior. And Ghetto, well, you know what that is!

Rape among Western White Women: An Examination

Here we will look impressionistically at all of the cases that I can recall of females I have known who got raped in one way or another. I am using a pretty strict definition of rape here – forget the insane feminist daffynition. According to that daffynition, I have been raping females for most of my life!

Rape cases can be broken down into two categories: Hardcore Rape or Stranger Rape and what is otherwise known as Date Rape. There is some overlap, but Date Rape usually does not involve overt threats of violence and Stranger Rape almost always does. Stranger Rape frequently involves some sort of actual violence, and in Date Rape, true, hardcore violence is not common. However, some women are beaten and battered in the context of ongoing Date Rapes with a long-term boyfriend, and this complicates the definitions. It is not uncommon to see a bruised, battered woman who is getting raped on a regular basis.

Stranger Rape is much more likely to be prosecuted, and Date Rape is notoriously hard to prosecute. Almost all rapes by boyfriends (especially long-term boyfriends) and husbands fall into the Date Rape category. Nevertheless, Date Rape is still rape, and females who get date-raped often suffer consequences afterwards.

All cases below involved White females from the US or UK. Ages ranged from 9-80, but most were aged 19-24. The male rapists were aged 14-40, with most around 19-24. Four were White, and two were Black.

Case 1- Stranger Rape: A White female (aged ~80?) was raped in Los Angeles. The woman was a schoolteacher in Los Angeles who never married and lived alone. When she was an old lady, a very young Black male, apparently a teenage boy (age 14-16?), broke in and raped her in a brutal crime. At the time I was astonished that such a young boy would rape an old lady.

Case 2 – Stranger Rape: A White female was sexually assaulted at age 11 by a child molester-rapist. Her 11 year old friend was also assaulted. They had hiked to a lake and were walking home through a forest in New York State in a  area where there were no homes or people around when a White man in a ski mask (aged ~30?) with a knife accosted them. He fondled them and then ran off to a truck where he drove away. He was never caught. The 11 year old friend blamed my friend for it happening to both of them, and their friendship ended after that. This may more properly be seen as a sexual assault than as a rape.

Long term consequences are not known, but she has suffered from depression for most of her life. The relationship of the rape to her later mental issues is unknown, however, some say that her subsequent depression was not related to this incident. The crime is a very sensitive topic, and no one has been able to bring it up to her for a long time. In fact rape in general is a sensitive subject when she is around, and if you bring it up, she will usually get angry and throw some sort of a fit.

Case 3 – Date Rape: A White female (age 19-20?) was in Jamaica vacationing with a friend. They met some local Black Jamaican guys their age (19-20?) and hit it off with them. One of the Jamaicans offered to row them out to a nearby island where they could do whatever. He got her out to the island and then said that if she ever wanted to get off that island that night, she had to have sex with him. She didn’t want to be stuck on the island that night, so she gave in and had sex with him. I consider this a case of definite rape, though no prosecutor would ever prosecute it. Long-term consequences are not known, but I think she is over it by now at any rate.

Case 4 – Date Rape: A young female aged 19 is a college student. On New Years Eve, she went to a party and got very drunk. She ended up in a bedroom with some White college guy about her age. The last thing she remembers is she was down on her knees sucking the guy’s cock. After that, she blacked out and apparently passed out. Next thing she remembered, she was waking up and the guy was on top of her fucking her. She yelled at him to get off her, and threw him off her body.

As she was passed out, her vagina did not lubricate (she did not get wet) and he basically “fucked her dry.” The next day she had some minor vaginal bleeding from getting dry fucked. She was depressed about this incident because though she had had anal and oral sex before, she was technically a virgin as far as vaginal sex was concerned, and this is how she lost her virginity, technically getting date raped by some jerk. She had wanted to lose her technical virginity in an important way with someone she cared about. She talked to her friends afterwards, and they all said, “Guess what? You just got raped.” A lot of them also called her an idiot for getting into that situation.

For the next three months, she was unaccountably very angry, and she had no idea of why. It’s a good guess that the mysterious anger may have been caused by being raped. She also said she was tired of being called an idiot for letting this incident happen to her. I do feel that this is rape, but no DA would ever prosecute it.

Case 5 – Date Rape: A woman aged ~40 got involved in a long-term relationship with a White male aged ~40 that turned into some sort of abused or battered woman scenario. The man was quite abusive, had a horrible temper and ranted and raved a lot. He also demanded sex whenever he wanted it. She was often not in a mood for sex, and he simply violently forced it on her anyway despite her strenuous protests. She referred to it as “terror sex.” She may have given in due to fear of him, but it is hard to say. She had hip problems due to a disease called ankylosing spondiitis, and at some point needed a hip replacement. As her hip problems worsened, he stepped up the rough sex in an effort to damage her hip even further.

His behavior was complicated by heavy drug and alcohol abuse. Being in this relationship precipitated a period of heavy drinking and hashish use on her part. She got out of the relationship, but even now, she does not like to talk about it. Long-term effects were unknown, but there was a suicide attempt afterwards and she suffers from debilitating depression. The suicide attempt was related to the depression. I was unable to determine what effect that date raping might have caused the depression, however she has been wary of relationships ever since due to fear of getting involved with another man like this one who picks out vulnerable women. She thought he picked her out due to her vulnerability.

Case 6 – Date Rape?: A woman age 25 was with her young White boyfriend, aged 28, in hotel room. At some point while they were having sex, he took his cock and simply shoved it into her ass, very hard, and started pounding away. So he started having anal sex with her by penetrating her rapidly and violently without any lubrication. This can not only be very painful for the woman but it can also cause anal injury. At some point, she got him out of her ass.

She looked around for a way to retaliate. There was a champagne bottle on the table next to the bed, drained, as they had finished it off earlier. She took the champagne bottle and shoved it neck end right up his ass! It went all the way in, penetrated to a few inches at least. Wow! You go, girl. Then the relationship was over. She refers to this as rape but I am not ever sure if it is.

In the course of normal sex, a lot of folks aggressively try to different positions and moves on their partner without asking the other’s position. They simply do it without being asked. However, I think this guy’s behavior was most ungentlemanly at the least, and I’ve certainly never done such a thing. No DA would prosecute on this, and most law enforcement (LE) folks would even say that no rape had occurred. Nevertheless, the woman said that getting penetrated that way had been extremely painful, and it was not an experience she wished to repeat.

Conclusion: Looking around at popular news stories such as the Steubenville rape case and others in the news lately, we can see that the vast majority of rape cases fall into the Date Rape category. This stuff degenerates into a “He said, she said,” sort of thing, and LE will ask the woman, “Why didn’t you leave? Why did you stay in the relationship? Why did you get so wasted? If you didn’t want to have sex with him, why were you on your knees sucking his cock?” and other questions along those lines. Cases are not commonly reported and even when they are, DA’s usually choose not to file.

The Steubenville case was special because she was passed out cold, and it caught on videotape. Having sex with a passed out female is not only creepy and somewhat necrophilic, but it is also one of the most serious kinds of Date Rape. Cases are much more likely to be filed when the woman is passed out cold.

The fact that most rapes are Date Rapes means that there is not much we can do to stop rape in the US other than educating men to behave in a gentlemanly way and educating females about the slimy ways of males. Date Rapes are hardly prosecuted now, and that’s probably for the best as it is almost impossible to prove. I think a lot of these guys could use a short sentence at least, but in these cases, it is nearly impossible to even prove that a rape occurred in the first place. In cases of dubious evidence of guilt, it is better than no prosecution at all occur. Obviously we can prosecute in cases where rapes are caught on videotape.

Date Rape should not be minimized despite its somewhat hazy nature. Evidence shows that some females indeed suffer long-term consequences from Date Rapes, including anger, depression and suicide attempts.

We are probably doing all we can to stop Stranger Rapes already and I don’t see how we can do more without turning into a surveillance society.

There are simply no easy answers to this painful societal problem!

What Should Be Done About Black Crime?

Often when I write about Black crime, people start jumping up and down and demanding to know what my “solution” is. If I have no solution, I am more or less ordered to shut up about it. It’s usually Black people who do this, but White liberals and Leftists do it too.

We could start by admitting there’s a problem in the first place. The problem has a name: Black crime.

The first thing we need to do is to overcome the obstacle course of diversions that Blacks and White PC types throw up every time we mention the problem that dare not speak it’s name.

“Why Black crime? Why not White crime? Whites commit crime too! Why not human crime! Blacks are not different from other humans! What causes Black crime – the same thing that causes crime in humans in general! No! Let’s talk about White crime like child molesting, serial killers, mass shooters, the Holocaust, colonialism, the American Indian genocide, bla bla bla.”

Another line is to deny that there is a problem altogether. This is done by mustering together all sorts of weird statistical arguments, comparing statistical outliers, pointing out various White historical crime ways, recent and dating back centuries. Various outliers, Black and White, are tossed about as if they were rules and not exceptions.

Arguments are made that Black crime is really no big deal after all and anyone should just go live with a whole bunch of Black people and everything should be peachy and rosy.

I advocate doing nothing other than what we are already doing (massive law enforcement or whatever). I’m not necessarily saying, “Something needs to be done about it!” Well, that’s what your average human thinks when they look at the problem, but that may not be the best way to look at it. More important is that this a serious problem, it needs to be discussed openly, frequently and loudly, and hopefully there is some way we could possibly ameliorate it.

In the meantime, we need to keep on doing tried and true stuff like locking up unbelievable numbers of Black male criminals. This actually works to lower crime simply by taking these idiots off the streets. As far as what else to do, I guess I will leave that to LE theorists and criminologists.

Guiliani’s “broken windows” approach is ugly as Hell, but that worked too. But all these are shitty ways of dealing with the problem. It’s everyone’s solution. What to do about tons of Black criminals. Lock em up for God sake! By the millions! Yeah, it works, but it’s less than ideal.

Main reason I think it needs to be discussed is because it is 100% taboo to even broach this subject at all in any way, shape or form. Why? Whenever I start writing about this, Blacks and liberals usually start jumping up and down and yelling, “Stop talking about it!” “Shut up!”

This is the way most Blacks and many PC types react when the subject is broached.

But the White crime rate is far below the Black crime rate. The Black rate is so much higher that most sane folks simply do not want to live around large numbers of Blacks. The insane Black crime rate has also contributed to the decay of many Black hoods and cities and turned them into what looks like wastelands.

So there is something special about the high Black rate:

1. Makes people scared of Black people.
2. Makes people avoid and not want to live around Black people.
3. Helps turn Black hoods and cities into post-nuclear bombed out wastelands.
4. Fills jails full of Black guys.
5. Leaves a huge % of Black guys with criminal records.
6. Creates an incredible number of victims, including insane victimization rates in the Black community itself.

So there are differences. The White crime rate, whatever it is, does not:

1. Make anyone afraid of Whites.
2. Make anyone avoid or not want to live with Whites.
3. Help destroy White cities and turn them into dystopian ruins.
4. Fill corrections facilities full of huge percentages of White men.
5. Leave vast % of Whites with a criminal record.
6. Create an insane victimization ratio in White communities.

So at the very least, let’s get the conversation out there so we are talking about the elephant in the living room called “Black crime.”

We need to keep studying it because we are as yet uncertain why Blacks commit crimes at a vastly higher rate than Whites and Asians. It’s a paramount issue in our society and a question in desperate need of some sort of an answer.

Once we start to figure out why Blacks commit crimes at such a high level due to biology, genes, diet, and various and sundry environmental and cultural variables, then perhaps we can start looking towards some ways to ameliorate the problem.

There are drugs and gene therapy and genetic engineering for biological and genetic causations. These therapies are advancing at a rapid pace. There are possible dietary interventions.

If there are societal and cultural factors at play, we can design cultural and sociological interventions to deal with those. These interventions should be rigorously tested using the best possible science and it would be nice if they were cost effective.

There are all sorts of other interventions – psychological therapies and counseling of various types, yoga, meditation, the list goes on and on. Some of these therapies may even be useful for genetic or biological causations.

We really ought to be testing out various interventions with Blacks right now to see whether they reduce Black crime or not. But of course, no one is even studying it. Because that would be racist, you know.

This Is So Not Right

Here.

I realize that this kid is severe bad news all the way around, but no way in Hell can I see giving a kid an 85 year prison term for a crime he committed when he 13 years old. No way, no way, no way, no way. Put him in the youth authority until he is 25 years old. If he’s too dangerous to be in youth authority, put him in adult prison in some special wing. No way on Earth can you give someone life for a crime they committed when they were a 13 year old boy. Forget it.

By the way, I also do not believe in preventive detention, which is possibly what’s going on here. You can’t lock someone up just for being dangerous. It’s not illegal to be dangerous or even to be dangerous as Hell. That’s the price you pay for living in a free society. You have to live with dangerous people and take your chances with them.

Some Facts You Never Learned About Crime

Repost from the old site.

From this great link, we learn many facts about crime that turn conventional knowledge on its head. Logic about crime rates in the US. First of all, the crime rate rise from 1965-present was not the first such major rise in this nation.

Similarly, from 1900-1930, the crime rate rose sharply in America, then dropped sharply from 1930-1960, then rose sharply again from 1960-1980, then dropped sharply in recent years. But you would never know this to listen to public discourse.

All we know is that crime skyrocketed around 1960 and has remained at astronomical levels ever since. The old days, pre-1960, were times of almost no crime in a gloriously White America. This is a smoking pack of lies.

Crime rates do differ by race and sex, and to discuss this is not necessarily racist in the least. The Black homicide rate is 8X the White rate, and the male rate is 10X the female rate.

One thing we know is that the homicide rate is much higher today than in the good old days, right? Wrong. Homicide was higher from 1910-1940, in the days of glorious and safe White America, than it is today, often much higher.

What about robbery? It is true that robbery tripled between 1965-1975, remained high until 1991, and then dropped 40% to about a 1970 level.

Surely the death penalty could fight this horrible crime wave, right? Wishful thinking. Executions were very high from 1910-1950 but so was crime for much of that period.

More money for more cops will surely do the trick, right? Spending on crime fighting efforts has gone up almost 16 times per capita since 1900, but there has not been much of an effect on crime.

Race and sex combine to produce the most extreme outliers in the crime rate. Black males are 106 times (!!) more likely to be locked up than White females. If you want to feel safe, hang around White women.

As noted above, the crime rate is much lower than during 1910-1940, but we are locking up 6 times as many people as we were then per capita. So what gives? Why lock up so much people when the crime rate is so much lower, especially since 1910-1940 is hardly regarded as a time of terrifying crime in the US?

Surely violent crime is far higher than in the past, though, right, and so many more prisoners now are locked up for violent crime than in the past? Think again. Violent crime is the same – 25% of prisoners were locked up for violent crime in 1910 and 25% are locked up now.

One salient fact is that juvenile crime has risen dramatically – the juvenile rate for violent crime has gone up 4X and the rate for property crime has gone up 2.5X over a century. Yet the current juvenile crime rate is only 30% higher than 1957.

The list of statistics above would seem to not only smash many of our cherished myths about crime, but is also frustrating in that it seems to pour cold water on many of our proposed solutions to crime. We can see why criminology is something of a round file for social science theory. After studying it intensively for decades, so much of crime still seems to defy scientific analysis and explication.

The only way that these statistics make any kind of sense is if we conceive of America as always have a lot of crime and violent crime for the past 100 years. This is something that the Europeans and Asians know well. Sometimes the rates go up, sometimes they go down, but they are usually much higher than rates in much of Europe and Asia.

There is something criminogenic and violent about US society, and there has been for some time. Violent crime rates among both Whites and Blacks were very high in the South all through the 1800′s and remained high for both races through the past century.

Lots of booze and guns, an honor culture, primitive attitudes towards women, a cultivation of stupidity and fundamentalist brainrot contributed to a Stroke Belt of homicidal hotheads.

I just got through watching most of Yukmouth Presents: United Ghettos of America, Volume 2 , a documentary about rappers. Check it out (if you don’t mind the porn that is) if you want to see the rot that is rap music – a celebration of everything that is coarse, stupid, sickening, dangerous, amoral, sociopathic and depraved about Ghetto Black Culture.

Watching that video, I do not expect the crime rate in the US to move towards Japanese levels anytime soon.

Nope, “Nerdy” Whites Don’t Have Elevated Rates of Any Crimes

tulio offers the typical crazy Black explanation for supposedly elevated White rates of certain crimes. Truth is, I am not aware that Whites have elevated rates of any crimes whatsoever, other than White kids having higher rates of animal abuse. Blacks are simply more depraved than Whites on just about every single metric you can possibly study. I know this because I’ve studied criminology for a long time.

As for why whites are more likely to be animal abusers, wackos, pedophiles, etc is I think whites are more likely to be neurotic than blacks. Money is the motivator behind most black crime. Drugs, fighting over drug territory via gangs, armed robbery. You don’t really have any black Jeffrey Dahmers. Blacks don’t tend to do crimes that are just completely crazy.

Well first of all, Blacks are much more likely than Whites to molest children.

And they are much more likely than Whites to be Jeffrey Dahmers, that is, serial killers.

I don’t know what a “wacko” is. I guess it means schizophrenics. Blacks are much more likely to be schizophrenics than Whites are.

We don’t know that Whites abuse animals more. We only know that White kids abuse animals more. Congratulations. On about 1000 indexes of depravity, Blacks are more moral than Whites on maybe one of them. You guys want a trophy to stick on your wall?

This is just the classic Black bullshit against relatively introverted Whites. Introverted White types are “nerds,” and supposedly nerds commit some sort of weird and ultra-depraved crimes more than other humans. Nerds may not be very nice to look at, but they are probably the most harmless humans on Earth.

Neurosis in its classic form may lead to guys with funny stares and thick glasses but it does not lead or predispose to any criminal behavior whatsoever. The classic neurotic is nice to a fault, timid, withdrawn and exceedingly fearful. Moral standards are typically extremely high, and often intelligence is elevated too. There are high levels of guilt, introspection, inhibition, caution, avoidance, and extreme standards of morality.

All of these things together cause the classic introverted neurotic to have the lowest levels of crime of any humans.

I’ve known the sort of Whites who torture and kill animals. Guess what? They’re the extroverts, just as you would expect.

White Men Can’t Bang

Repost from the old site.

The title is a take-off on the movie, White Men Can’t Jump. It appears that, in addition to deficient basketball skills, White men, at least in the California, are also deficient in gangbanging skills. Whites have a very low rate of street gang membership, at least in California. Sadly, that is not true of other ethnic groups.

I am not writing this post to stir up racism, but only to explain such phenomena as White flight, especially noticeable in California.

It is worth noting that once you get to high-income cities in the state like Walnut Creek, these cities are often pretty diverse ethnically these days. There are good numbers of Hispanics and Asians in that town, and Blacks on the streets are not rare.

At a certain income level, better-behaved, more integrated members of all ethnic groups will be present in a town and ethnicity per se will probably have little effect on crime or gang membership – the rates will be pretty low for all groups.

The problem seems to occur at lower income levels, especially poor or low-income areas, and there crime and gangs are correlated with race. In those areas of California, low-income Whites are often fairly well-behaved, while low-income Blacks and Hispanics are simply a catastrophe.

I recently moved from a mostly-White small town in California in which many of the White residents were poor or low income. There were no gangs and there was no graffiti.

Crime rates were so low that I often left my car or home unlocked. Pathology existed, but it tended to be more mild or inner-directed (drug and alcohol abuse, minor drunken fights, domestic disturbances) rather than more virulent or directed outwards.

I moved to a city about three times as large that is 70% Hispanic. It is probably about as poor and low income as the White town I came from. In the low-income area I live in, depraved Underclass “nigga-gangsta” culture holds sway as the local Hispanics are in thrall to gang, drug and gun culture. That is the only way to describe it.

Pimping, open prostitution, open drug sales, open fistfighting, public drunkenness, graffiti everywhere, high crime rates – the place is a train wreck. Welcome to the “hood”, as locals proudly describe it. I have already suffered a theft from my apartment, while I suffered no thefts in 16 years in the poor White town. The young people often seem overtly menacing, predatory and amoral.

Gangs are omnipresent, and there may be as many as 6,000 gang members in a town of 50,000. Whereas the poor Whites directed their aggression inwards with drug and alcohol abuse, the poor Hispanics direct it outwards, threatening and harming others.

I finally realize what White flight is all about. Most Whites don’t really care what your race is or what your skin color is. Based on grotesquely elevated Black and Hispanic crime and gang membership rates in California, for Whites to flee large Black and Hispanic populations is not necessarily an act of racism at all – it is an act of sheer logic and self-protection.

Not only is it rational for Whites to flee large groups of Blacks and Hispanics, it is also rational for well-behaved Blacks and Hispanics (and there are many millions in California alone) to flee these areas too. And we are already starting to see this in the state.

I had already calculated differential crime rates among ethnic groups and plotted them to IQ in a previous post in an attempt to try to understand crime, ethnicity and intelligence. Unfortunately, IQ did not explain differential ethnic crime rates well.

I recently got ahold of data on gang membership in California and decided to use it to calculate rates of gang membership per ethnicity and then compare the groups. I have included the crime and IQ charts from the previous post for comparative purposes. It turns out that gang membership is a vastly worse problem than crime per se, and the ethnic dimensions of it have not been adequately explored.

In order to do that, let us look at the figures for California, from a 1996 document that is already 11 years out of date. This is the way things were 11 years ago. I lacked figures for the nation as a whole.

Gang membership rates1:

Amerindians: None Known, minimal
Whites:      Baseline
Polynesians: High, figures unknown2
(SE) Asians: 18 X higher than Whites (!)
Hispanics:   54 X higher than Whites (!!)
Blacks:      140 X higher than Whites(!!!)

Now compare to crime rates themselves, this time for the nation as a whole. Asian crime rates are low, but gang membership is high, a seeming paradox. If the increase in crimes committed by certain ethnic groups compared to Whites seems shocking, the increased rate of gang membership is truly out of this world and surreal.

Crime rates (based on The Color of Crime):

Asians:      78% lower than Whites (!)
Whites:      Baseline
Amerindians: 2X higher than Whites
Polynesians: 2X higher than Whites
Hispanics:   3.3X higher than Whites
Blacks:      8.2X higher than Whites (!)

Now let us look at IQ scores.

IQ scores:

Whites:          103 (link)
SE Asians:       93.53
Hispanics:       89
American Indians 87 (link)
Blacks           85 (link)
Polynesians      85 (link, link)

The rates of gang membership are vastly more than would be expected by IQ; nevertheless there is indeed a linear relationship which is surprising, except in the cases of Polynesians and Amerindians. With 1% of California’s population, Amerindians may be too small of a population to do much gang-wise. Polynesian figures for rates of gang membership do not exist, but seem to be high.

In particular, the rates of Black crime and gang membership are vastly more than would be predicted by IQ.

Furthermore, these figures do not take into account the Flynn Effect (FE), whereby the average Black and Polynesian today has the same IQ as Whites of 1957, the average Hispanic today has the same IQ as Whites of 1970 and the average SE Asian today has the same IQ as Whites of 1985.

As IQ’s have gone through the roof over the last 40-50 years, paradoxically, crime and gang membership rates in the ethnic groups above have similarly skyrocketed. Since no one proposes a theory whereby rising IQ leads to increased crime, rising IQ has nothing to do with differential ethnic crime and gang ratios.

Nevertheless, there is still a disturbing White – SE Asian – Hispanic – Black ranking in IQ and gang membership (leaving aside Amerindians). IQ may still be relevant to crime and gang ratios if the FE has not effected some aspect of IQ that is tied into crime.

It is true that the FE has not led to an across the board, broad increase in general intelligence. For more on the FE and controversies about what it is measuring, see my post here.

Whites from 1957-1970 (whose IQ’s ethnic IQ’s now compare to) were even less likely to join gangs than Whites are today, in fact, their gang membership was about zero, and even their crime rates were relatively low.

However, by 1970, there were already noticeable Black and Hispanic gang problems in the US.

It seems, based on comparisons of ethnic IQ’s to those of Whites from 1957-1970, that there is absolutely no way whatsoever to explain high ethnic crime rates based on intelligence. When attempting to explain rates of ethnic street gang membership, we need to look elsewhere than IQ.

Let us look at Philippe Rushton’s R/K Selection Theory. I am not a fan of his and the theory has some major issues, but at least one part of it makes sense.

                Blacks Whites   Asians

Aggressiveness  +      Baseline  -
Cautiousness    -      Baseline  +
Impulsivity     +      Baseline  -
Self-concept    +      Baseline  -
Sociability     +      Baseline  -

Greater extroversion will tend towards the Black end, and greater introversion will tend towards the Asian end. Rushton’s theory has some issues. For Asians, he used only NE Asians, and not SE Asians, American Indians or Hispanics, who are part Amerindian. Studies have shown that Papuans, Polynesians, Negritos, Micronesians, Melanesians and Aborigines are also Asians, yet they are excluded.

From a very early age, Asians are placid, introverted and less aggressive. Blacks are at the furthest end of activity and extroversion scale. As we know from all races, more extroverted folks tend to be more aggressive. Whites are known to be somewhere in between. I do feel that this explains a lot of behavioral differentials between races.

At worst, Asian societies are so conforming and rules-oriented that they seem boring and oppressive.

As far as Blacks, at worst, a society of extroverts of any race would definitely have issues with not just aggression but unreliability, irresponsibility, drug and alcohol abuse, more partying and less studying, precocious and profligate sexuality, impulsiveness and even chaos.

Indeed, sociopaths are simply extroverts taken to the behavioral extreme, as schizoids and obsessives are the result of introversion gone wild.

This works pretty good for Asians, Whites and Blacks on a number of variables, including crime rates (see table above).

However, this theory completely falls flat on its face when trying to explain elevated crime rates of Amerindians and Hispanics (see table below).

                Asians Whites    Am Indians

Aggressiveness  --     Baseline  --
Cautiousness    ++     Baseline  ++
Impulsivity     --     Baseline  --
Self-concept    --     Baseline  --
Sociability     --     Baseline  --
Crime rates     --     Baseline  2X (!)
Gang membership --     Baseline  --

                Asians Whites    Hispanics

Aggressiveness  --     Baseline  -?
Cautiousness    ++     Baseline  +?
Impulsivity     --     Baseline  -?
Self-concept    --     Baseline  -?
Sociability     --     Baseline  -?
Crime rates     --     Baseline  3.3X (!)
Gang membership --     Baseline  140X (!)

                NE Asians Whites    SE Asians

Aggressiveness  --        Baseline  -
Cautiousness    ++        Baseline  +
Impulsivity     --        Baseline  -
Self-concept    --        Baseline  -
Sociability     --        Baseline  -
Crime rates     --        Baseline  -
Gang membership --        Baseline  17X (!)

Based on the data above, Amerindians should be expected to be even more introverted than Asians. Hispanics might be expected to fall somewhere in between Whites and Asians. SE Asians should be expected to possibly fall between NE Asians and Whites on all variables.

If Asian babies are placid, then the Indian baby is like a rock – an alert rock, but a rock nevertheless. Indian babies are known to be silent, and amazingly, it is not even easy to make them cry.

Indian women cart them around in pouches on their backs in Mexico, and if you did not know better, you might think they were asleep or even dead. Hispanics in the US are about 60% White and 40% Amerindian.

SE Asians, although they are genetically diverse from NE Asians, are still Asians. I do not have any proof, but I would assume that SE Asian babies are placid like NE Asians. As they grow older, SE Asians seem more quiet and introverted than Whites and Blacks, though maybe less so than NE Asians.

This intuitively appealing theory fails totally when trying to explain high crime and gang membership rates of Hispanics, high crime rates of Amerindians, and high gang membership rates of SE Asians. All of these groups tend towards the less activated, more controlled and introverted Asian end, and all are Asians or part-Asians of one type or another.

A biological explanation may work for Polynesian crime and gang membership rates, because recent evidence shows that they have a “warrior gene” that effects MAO in the brain in greater numbers than other groups. This results in impulsiveness, risk-taking, aggression, violence and elevated elevated levels of smoking and drinking. They probably selected for it on their long, risky trips across the seas.

But there is no evidence that any other group above has such a gene in such high numbers.

I confess that the relative frequencies of gang memberships and ethnic groups bothers me, because I can’t figure out why some groups are more prone to this than others. Then again, if you can come up with a rational theory that even partly explains any kind of crime, you are practically eligible for a Nobel Prize. Criminology is the ultimate Black hole of theory and scholarship.

More and more, it seems that culture, possibly poverty (at least in some groups anyway), and not genes or IQ is what drives gang membership and crime rates.

Yet different races are more or less prone to crime and gang membership even when they live in poverty. Poor Whites commit relatively few crimes and are much less likely to join gangs than the poor of many other groups.

As yet, we lack a good explanation for this.

As a beginning theory, and because I honestly cannot come up with anything else, I might offer that there is still something protective in White culture in California right now that is keeping Whites from joining gangs at high rates. What that protective factor is, I have no idea, but I do not think that this has anything to do with it.

As far as what is causing such high rates of gang membership in the other groups, a depraved gang, drug and gun culture has developed among certain groups for complex reasons. It has then spread outwards to other groups, while expanding in the core groups. The protective factor that insulates White culture is apparently lacking to various degrees in the other groups discussed.

If and when any considerable sector of young US Whites begins to adopt the Underclass gangbanging criminal culture of other ethnics, the US is going to be in for some very serious problems. It is only the relative resistance (so far) of US Whites to gangsta culture that is keeping the nation from a Goyaesque crime, gun and gang Hell.

Notes

1. Rates were calculated based on 1996 street gang numbers per race computed against the ethnic group’s % of the California population as of recent years.

Whites had 5,000 gang members and have 49% of the state’s population.

Asians had 25,000 gang members and have 13% of the state’s population. This distorts the Asian rate by overestimating gang membership in NE Asians because most Asian street gangs are SE Asians, but I did not have access to breakdowns in the state’s Asian population per country.

Hispanics had 170,000 gang members and have 33% of the state’s population.

Blacks had 100,000 gang members and have 7% of the state’s population.

2. In California, Polynesian gangs are about 80% Samoan and 20% Tongan.

3. I toss out an estimate of SE Asian IQ of 93.5 based on a Hmong IQ of 96.5, a Vietnamese IQ of 99.5 (link, link, link) and a Lao/Khmer IQ of 89 . A rough average of these gives a SE Asian IQ of 93.5, which is not low at all. The Vietnamese IQ is from two major studies in Vietnam. One in 2001 found an IQ of 101 and one in 2006 found an IQ of 98.

The New York Lies, the Nation’s Liespaper of Record, Bashes Chavez with the Crime Stick Again

This article is a crock of lies. Just the US capitalist dogs, lying like they always do. This time they have the Venezuelan capitalist worms as a backup chorus.

First of all, crime is pretty much the same as pre-Chavez. Only homicide has gone up. And there are several nations in the Americas, all strong allies of the US, that have homicide rates as high as Venezuela’s. Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala…

Caribbean? Africa? Let’s not go there.

There is tons of crime in Latin America, and tons of homicide. Been that way forever, or at least for my lifetime.

What has increased under Chavez is not crime overall, but homicide. No one knows why, but the drug trade is usually suggested as the major culprit. Due to regional conditions, the drug trade has expanded into Venezuela a great deal under Chavez.

Nations with wild crime statistics are almost always Washington allies. Hence, Simon Romero and his rag, the New York Lies, never discuss that. I’ve never heard the US press blame a high crime rate on an existing government in my life.

Until Hugo Chavez showed up.

Chavez has the misfortune of being a leftwinger in a nation that is undergoing a crime wave, so the US media has decided, for the first time ever, to blame a government for crime.

The New York Lies bashes the government for not closing the gap between the rich and the poor. Yet the NYL is dedicated towards an agenda around the world to expand the rich-poor gap. Any nation that tries to reduce it gets pounded incessantly by the rats at the Lies. Chavez has made this the raison d etre of his government since he got in. This is the whole reason for the Lies‘ propaganda war against him.

The article mentions that Venezuela is experiencing an economic downturn in the past couple of years. It’s true, after years of explosive growth under Chavez. Last time I checked, the economies of most of the world were underwater, right? All because of the NY Lies’ buddies on Wall Street, who blew up the world economy. Ever hear the NY Lies blame any other country for the local effects of the downturn? Course not. It’s not their fault. But when the global Depression hits Venezuela, it’s all Chavez’ fault.

The article mentions inflation in Venezuela, said to be the highest in the region. Venezuela has had high inflation for decades. It was actually much higher when the opposition was in office. It’s dropped quite a bit under Chavez.

All of the opposition clowns quoted in the piece are well-known opposition losers and jokers. Nearly every thing they say is dishonest on some level.

Contrary to the piece, Venezuela has had a horrendous crime rate for decades, as far back as anyone can remember. The rich don’t even care about crime, and they never did in the past, because almost all of the crime and homicide is in the horrible slums that Chavez is trying to get rid of.

Chavez did not cause the murder rate to go up, and out of control crime rates are not so easy to solve. Ask governments in parts of the world where crime has been terrible for decades whether it’s their fault and what they can do about it. It’s not their fault, and no one knows how to fix it.

Really, it’s just the poor massacring each other, so the rich don’t even care. This is just another club to beat Chavez with.

Chavez has been trying to deal with the problem. He’s hired a lot more cops, and he is retraining a lot of the police force. He also boosted their wages significantly.

One major problem is that the police and the criminals are all too often the same folks. So no one trust the cops, and the cops commit tons of crime themselves. In part, this is why crimes are not solved. People don’t cooperate with the cops.

Oh, and about that figure: 90% of homicides are not solved. Terrible, huh? No wait. Let’s go next door to Colombia. It’s 98% there! But the New York Lies won’t tell us this, because the Colombian fascist regime is best buddies with the US state and editorial board of the Lies.

The opposition has no plan, repeat no plan, to deal with crime. Crime was insane and out of control the whole time the opposition was in office, and they were never able to get a handle on it.

The main agenda of the opposition is to stop closing the gap between the rich and poor and to start widening it again, zero out all the social spending, and start reshifting income from the bottom to the top again, the way it was in Venezuela from 1823-1989. Impoverish the working people to enrich the wealthy. Declare war on labor (the working people). Great agenda. Ought to do wonders for that crime rate.

Wink.

It’s also a lie that Chavez has not reduced the rich-poor gap. He’s done a better job of it than nearly anyone else in Latin America. The poverty rate was near 80% when he got in. Now it’s 23%. Solidarity!

What will the opposition liars scum do about the rich-poor gap they bash Chavez with? Nothing. No wait, a lot. They will make it much worse. The NY Lies forgot to tell you that.

I will add that the government’s attempts at censorship are lamentable though.

Myth: Whites Are More Likely to be Pedophiles and Child Molesters

There is a long-standing myth perpetrated by Blacks and White anti-racists like Tim Wise that Whites are more likely to molest children than any other race. This goes back to some stereotype of the creepy, nerdy, weirdo White guy who can’t get laid so he molests kids.

About time we shot this myth full of holes like it needs to be.

Stats:

% of total child molesters:

White                            51%
African American                 25%
Hispanic                         15%
American Indian/Alaska Natives   2%
Asian/Pacific Islanders          1%

Relative to their population, likelihood of abuse compared to background population rate:

American Indian  +100%
Blacks           +92%
Hispanics        no difference
Whites           -35%
Asian            -67%

On an individual basis, American Indians are most likely to molest a child, then Blacks, then Hispanics, then Whites, then Asians.

The high Amerindian rate is probably due to the utterly collapsed nature of Amerindian families and societies as a whole. The high Black rate is because, well, Blacks have elevated rates of most crimes compared to Whites, Hispanics, Asians and Amerindians. I fail to see why child molesting should be an exception. Low Asian rate is probably because across almost all crime stats, Asians typically have the lowest rates of them all.

As you can see, not only are Whites less likely to molest kids than Blacks, they have one of the lowest child molesting rates of any ethnic group in the US, surpassed only by Asians.

One rejoinder to this argument is that those statistics include as a “child” persons all the way to age 17. Sex with a 14-17 year old is hardly child molestation. The argument is that while Blacks may be more likely to have sex with teens, Whites are more likely to have sex with an actual child under the age of 13.

Statistics are here. From the site:

* Those inmates who were convicted of committing violent acts against children were more like to have been White, a percentage of nearly 70%, than any other race.

The figure is from the Bureau of Prisons, 1991. In 1991, Whites were 74% of the population, and they were “nearly 70% of those convicted of child molesting.” In other words, Whites are about 7% less likely to commit child molestation than an average American.

The problem with the 1991 report was that, as usual, Hispanics were lumped in with Whites in terms of crime perpetrators, artificially inflating the White rate. The 1994 Justice Department report finally disaggregates Whites from Hispanics. The results, % of total child molesters by race:

Whites    54.1%
Hispanics 23.5%
Blacks    20.7%
Other     1.7%

Now compare to their presence in the general population for likelihood of being a child molester as opposed to an average American:

Hispanics +96%
Blacks +59%
Whites -35%
Other -58%

This lines up with anecdotal reports of high rates of sex crimes in areas overrun aliens from Mesoamerica.

The myth lies shattered.

Hispanics are 2.3 X (135%) more likely to molest children than Whites.

Blacks are 85% more likely to molest children than Whites.

Where did the myth come from? It’s not certain, but for most crimes, especially violent crimes, Blacks have rates that are up to 6-9 times higher than Whites. For child molestation, these wildly elevated rates for Blacks are not seen. Instead, Whites much more approach parity with Black crime rates in terms of child molestation. This greatly increased White rate vis a vis Blacks compared to other crimes may have given rise to the illusion that Whites are more likely than Blacks to commit this crime.

Low Self-Esteem and Its Ramifications

In the comments to A Few Words On Stereotype Threat, tulio asks in response to Ken Hoop who said he was worried more about low self-esteem among Whites than among minorities:

How does low white self-esteem manifest itself in society? I’m curious.

Well, what you see a lot of in White society are these kind of shy, nice guy types, often overweight, or dorky, nerdy guys. A lot of times you get the feeling that they do not have a lot of confidence. It’s clear that they don’t have a real high opinion of themselves. With middle aged men, especially lower income, overweight, losing their looks, a lot of the time, they look downcast like they are not enjoying things. You don’t get the impression that this guy thinks he is King of the Hill anymore, if he ever did.

Basically it’s associated with neuroticism, niceness, caution, lack of risk taking behavior, stuff like that. Probably lower rates of drug and alcohol abuse too. Low self-esteem is not great, but it’s not the end of the world. Low self-esteem people tend to be nice. As self-esteem rises, people are not so nice anymore. Criminals have very high self-esteem. In White women, low self-esteem is associated with overweight or promiscuous sexual behavior, sluttiness, etc.

Not sure why that is. Prostitutes and porn stars, etc. have notoriously low self-esteem. A lot of these White women cutting themselves and whatnot, or with Borderline Personality Disorder, don’t have good self-esteem at all. Depression is obviously associated with low self esteem, and so is anxiety to some extent. About drug and alcohol abuse, I am not so sure.

High self-esteem is a way worse problem than low self-esteem.

One can argue that people only have so much love to give. The love can go to the self, to others, or to both. As self-esteem rises, a lot of love goes to the self and in many cases, there is less left for others. Further, there is a tendency to see oneself as superior. As self-esteem decreases, self-love is pretty low, but humans all have a great love potential. The love has to go somewhere. As it’s not going to the self too much, it will tend to go outwards. Furthermore, the low self-esteem person doesn’t feel very superior to others.

Alternatively, low self-esteem people send their anger inwards at the self, whereas with high self-esteem, there’s a tendency to project it out at others as a defense. I suppose one can argue once again that the psyche has a reservoir of anger or rage and it has to go somewhere, either inward at the ego or outwards at objects in the world.

That’s why people with low self-esteem are often very nice, and cocky bastards are often complete pricks.

Obviously, it’s ideal to love yourself and others well, but life’s not always so ideal.